Please, someone lock this thread... that poor dead horse is getting slaughtered across every fucking plane of existence possible

Radiant is being logical and realistic. Let him keep going. 👌

I don't mind posting in this thread every day, gives me something to do on break at work

But why, though? You're being deliberately obtuse about the definition of the word "free" that everyone is using here. Agree or disagree, I refuse to believe that after all of this you simply don't know what people are saying.

The Games with Gold are a free benefit to a paid subscription. That is, the subscriber does not have to pay anything extra to take advantage of the Games with Gold during the period of their subscription, nor do they save anything by not taking advantage of it.

That second part is crucial to understanding the disconnect here. A subscriber who gets all four games each month pays exactly the same amount as a subscriber who doesn't get any of them, which makes them, by definition, an additional benefit at no additional cost (or, in other words, "free with subscription," which is exactly what this program is always described as).

Is that a legalistic usage of the word "free"? Is it marketing in order to add perceived value to the subscription? Duh. Welcome to the 21st century. Here's another example of the same usage: many hotels offer a free breakfast, free wifi, and free swimming pool. You, as a guest, may take advantage of all of those things, or none of them, but it doesn't in any way change the price of the room. Do you stand outside those hotels with a sign saying, "DON'T BE FOOLED! BREAKFAST IS NOT FREE IF YOU HAVE TO PAY FOR A ROOM TO GET IT!" Of course not... everyone understands the usage of the word "free" in this context.

If you're not already a Gold subscriber, or you don't appreciate the other benefits, you're welcome to factor in the additional benefit of the Games with Gold program to help you decide whether or not you want to subscribe from month to month. No one's trying to tell you not to do that. My wife refuses to stay at a hotel that doesn't have free breakfast and an indoor pool, even if I'd be perfectly satisfied at a hotel that offered neither of those things. But I'm not entitled to a cheaper room or a discount if I don't take advantage of those perks, so they don't factor into the cost, only the value, and the hotels (and Microsoft) know that by offering such things, they may draw in some customers that wouldn't come in otherwise.

And I guess my point is, so what? Everyone understands this. And I think that's why it's really grating to have to listen to this argument month after month. Everyone gets that Microsoft is not just giving these games away free to anyone who asks... we all know you have to subscribe to Gold. No one is being fooled here. You speak as though everyone else is somehow being taken in by clever presentation, and the "It's not really free!" crowd are the only voices of reason who can see through the deception.

Yes, marketing is involved. Yes, Microsoft is hoping that by offering this, they will benefit over the long term by increasing their subscription base. But you know what? I happen to like Xbox, so it seems to me that if they benefit, then in the long run, I probably benefit as well, because they can re-invest that capital into new games and products.

Gold is a service I've subscribed to for 14 years, long before the GwG program, and if that program goes away, I'll still subscribe for all the same reasons I did before GwG started. It's an additional benefit to something that I've already decided to pay for, so it comes to me at no additional cost. I know that doesn't meet the definition of "free" that you insist is the only pure and true definition, but the usage is correct, accepted, and well-understood.

Now, can't we just agree that each side understands where the other is coming from, agree to disagree, and let it go?

There's no such thing as a free benefit to a paid subscription ... because you pay for it.

By your logic, if someone paid for Gold and only used it to get GwG and never used it for multiplayer capability, the multiplayer capability would be a free benefit of Gold. But it's not.

I feel like it is so obvious what you are saying but people are still confused. What gives?

The disconnect is that once you've paid for Gold, Microsoft is legally obligated to provide the multiplayer capability, as that is what they state you are purchasing. For the entirety of your paid subscription, they must provide this service. As GwG is advertised as a free benefit, they do not HAVE to provide it for the full duration of your subscription. Thus if they're giving you something they don't have to give you, it's fair for someone to consider that free, is it not? Really getting into perceptions here that are just people looking through different windows at the same thing and stating they see something different.

There's no such thing as a free benefit to a paid subscription ... because you pay for it.

By your logic, if someone paid for Gold and only used it to get GwG and never used it for multiplayer capability, the multiplayer capability would be a free benefit of Gold. But it's not.

No, because you can pay for the Gold subscription without taking advantage of the Games with Gold, but you can't take advantage of Games with Gold without paying for the subscription. It's not an equal thing, regardless of which part you personally value more. The Gold subscription is what you are purchasing, according to the terms of service. The Games with Gold is an additional benefit, which you may or may not make use of, at no additional cost. It's up to you what value you place on the Games with Gold each month, but it in no way affects the cost of the subscription.

You can keep saying "there's no such thing," but I feel like this is a common enough concept in today's society:- Hotels: guests get "free" breakfast and wifi, non-guests don't, but guests don't get charged less for not using those amenities; - Restuarants: paying customers get "free" breadsticks or chips, but you can't just walk into Olive Garden and ask for free breadsticks (even if that's your favorite part of the meal), and my soda doesn't cost less if I only drink one than it does if I get three of their "free" refills; - Car dealerships: buy a car, get your first five oil changes for "free"... the price of the car doesn't change if you don't want or use those oil changes.

I'm pretty sure we could come up with literally dozens, if not hundreds of things that are provided to the customer at "no additional cost," provided they made the initial purchase. You could fairly point out that the actual purchase is priced sufficiently above cost to offset any losses from the "free" stuff, and I grant that in most cases, that's true -- businesses don't last very long if they're not turning a profit. However, if there's no cheaper alternative for not using the benefit, then you're just arguing semantics. Besides, in this case, they explicitly did not raise the price of Gold to offset whatever costs there may be to providing these games, so even that argument is moot here.

Look, like I said, I understand what you're saying... you choose to look at the whole thing as a package deal, and that's fine. I'm not trying to talk you out of that. All I'm saying is, it's also fair to look at it the other way -- the concept of "free with purchase" is pretty well established, and I don't see what the harm is if some choose to view GwG as an additional benefit to the subscription that they were going to pay for anyway. I don't understand why it's such a point of contention each month?

There's no such thing as a free benefit to a paid subscription ... because you pay for it.

By your logic, if someone paid for Gold and only used it to get GwG and never used it for multiplayer capability, the multiplayer capability would be a free benefit of Gold. But it's not.

No, because you can pay for the Gold subscription without taking advantage of the Games with Gold, but you can't take advantage of Games with Gold without paying for the subscription. It's not an equal thing, regardless of which part you personally value more. The Gold subscription is what you are purchasing, according to the terms of service. The Games with Gold is an additional benefit, which you may or may not make use of, at no additional cost. It's up to you what value you place on the Games with Gold each month, but it in no way affects the cost of the subscription.

You can keep saying "there's no such thing," but I feel like this is a common enough concept in today's society:- Hotels: guests get "free" breakfast and wifi, non-guests don't, but guests don't get charged less for not using those amenities; - Restuarants: paying customers get "free" breadsticks or chips, but you can't just walk into Olive Garden and ask for free breadsticks (even if that's your favorite part of the meal), and my soda doesn't cost less if I only drink one than it does if I get three of their "free" refills; - Car dealerships: buy a car, get your first five oil changes for "free"... the price of the car doesn't change if you don't want or use those oil changes.

I'm pretty sure we could come up with literally dozens, if not hundreds of things that are provided to the customer at "no additional cost," provided they made the initial purchase. You could fairly point out that the actual purchase is priced sufficiently above cost to offset any losses from the "free" stuff, and I grant that in most cases, that's true -- businesses don't last very long if they're not turning a profit. However, if there's no cheaper alternative for not using the benefit, then you're just arguing semantics. Besides, in this case, they explicitly did not raise the price of Gold to offset whatever costs there may be to providing these games, so even that argument is moot here.

Look, like I said, I understand what you're saying... you choose to look at the whole thing as a package deal, and that's fine. I'm not trying to talk you out of that. All I'm saying is, it's also fair to look at it the other way -- the concept of "free with purchase" is pretty well established, and I don't see what the harm is if some choose to view GwG as an additional benefit to the subscription that they were going to pay for anyway. I don't understand why it's such a point of contention each month?

So? You could pay for gold and not take advantage of any particular feature, including multiplayer capability.

You can look at it however you please. That doesn't change the actual fact of Games with Gold not being free.

The point of contention is when one person criticizes the quality of GwG and the inevitable response is "stop complaining, it's free!". Which is, pardon my French, utter bullshit. People can criticize any part of a paid product if they so please.

The only thing I'm going to say is that you are required to pay for Games With Gold if you wish to keep the "Free" games you already received. They don't magically stay on your dashboard when you cancel Gold as it's an ongoing subscription. Therefore, to me, you are paying to keep the Games With Gold you have already obtained via the service. I think that's why on the Games tab there's a spot that says "Games With Gold" so if you cancel it, you know how many games you may potentially be giving up that were "Free"?

BetaSigX20 has elegantly explained how two different views of the word "free" are causing this arguement. The first is free equals "absolutely free" and the second is free is "free with". And the response is "but if you have to pay, it's not free. As if everything said before was simply ignored. At this point this can't be a discussion about who's right, but needs to be an ackowledgement of each other's views.

However, this arguement will still continue. Not because people want to be right or want to convince the opposite side of their views (which will never happen), but because people get a rise out of it. (Lol wouldn't even be sursprised if some of these accounts on here are Russian bots . I mean there are no important elections going on until May 2019.)

"Free with payment" is an oxymoron designed by marketing departments. You can view it how you want, but I prefer to side with the reality presented by a simple fact: You cannot access Games with Gold without having Gold, a paid service.

"Free with payment" is an oxymoron designed by marketing departments. You can view it how you want, but I prefer to side with the reality presented by a simple fact: You cannot access Games with Gold without having Gold, a paid service.

But what if... I stole the Gold membership? Huh, huh, punk. What are you going to say now? Do you feel lucky, punk?

"Free with payment" is an oxymoron designed by marketing departments. You can view it how you want, but I prefer to side with the reality presented by a simple fact: You cannot access Games with Gold without having Gold, a paid service.

But what if... I stole the Gold membership? Huh, huh, punk. What are you going to say now? Do you feel lucky, punk?

Clearly you two still either don't see the two viewpoints or don't understand them. "Free with other purchase" is not an oxymoron. A service can be X+Y. But it is becoming very apparent that you guys are just trolling at this point, since you can't acknowledge other people's views. You don't need to agree with them, just realize they exist.

"Free with payment" is an oxymoron designed by marketing departments. You can view it how you want, but I prefer to side with the reality presented by a simple fact: You cannot access Games with Gold without having Gold, a paid service.

Isn't that leaning towards the "Nothing is free" argument? Even if the games were free to everyone, someone would come along with that argument and state that because we had to buy the console, they're not really free. Hell, they could probably just quote you and edit the words "Gold" to "Xbox" most the time.

{#}Free with payment{#} is an oxymoron designed by marketing departments. You can view it how you want, but I prefer to side with the reality presented by a simple fact: You cannot access Games with Gold without having Gold, a paid service.

But what if... I stole the Gold membership? Huh, huh, punk. What are you going to say now? Do you feel lucky, punk?

Clearly you two still either don't see the two viewpoints or don't understand them. {#}Free with other purchase{#} is not an oxymoron. A service can be X+Y. But it is becoming very apparent that you guys are just trolling at this point, since you can't acknowledge other people's views. You don't need to agree with them, just realize they exist.

I realise they exist but they are wrong. You can have a wrong opinion.

{#}Free with payment{#} is an oxymoron designed by marketing departments. You can view it how you want, but I prefer to side with the reality presented by a simple fact: You cannot access Games with Gold without having Gold, a paid service.

But what if... I stole the Gold membership? Huh, huh, punk. What are you going to say now? Do you feel lucky, punk?

Clearly you two still either don't see the two viewpoints or don't understand them. {#}Free with other purchase{#} is not an oxymoron. A service can be X+Y. But it is becoming very apparent that you guys are just trolling at this point, since you can't acknowledge other people's views. You don't need to agree with them, just realize they exist.

I see them and understand why people think that way. I'm saying it's not actually accurate. We all do little tricks on our mind especially when it comes to money - if I buy this I'll save that, if I get those together it's less than that, etc. etc But they don't change the facts.